Posted on 04/29/2006 6:53:53 PM PDT by blam
British troops in Iraq are afraid to open fire, secret MoD report confirms
By Sean Rayment. Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 30/04/2006)
British troops in Iraq "lack the confidence to open fire" because of a "fear of prosecution", says a confidential Ministry of Defence (MoD) report seen by The Sunday Telegraph.
It confirms that soldiers believe that if they shoot dead insurgents they will become embroiled in a "protracted investigation" and if prosecuted will receive "no support from the chain of command".
British troops show restraint when attacked in Basra
The study into soldiers' confidence is understood to have been ordered by senior officers because of a growing belief that the fear of prosecution could result in a soldier being killed because he was too scared to open fire.
Senior officers from the Land Warfare Centre flew to Iraq to question dozens of soldiers from the 7th Armoured Brigade. The report's observations are "drawn solely from those discussions".
Under the heading "Confidence to Open Fire", the report says: "All agreed that there was a certain British reticence to open fire, and that this was largely a positive feature at the start of an operational deployment. Further, given that this reticence will be reduced as the tour continues there should be some caution in case it is reduced too much. However, there remained a common belief that many soldiers lack the confidence to initiate opening fire when it is tactically and legally sound to do so.
"There is a widespread fear of being investigated for having opened fire, and of a protracted prosecution system that might ensue. Some believe that individual soldiers would not open fire as a result of this fear."
In a section headed "Lack of Support from the Chain of Command", the report indicates "widespread feeling that whilst the battalion/regiment would support an individual, the wider chain of command (senior officers) provided insufficient support".
The report follows persistent denials by the MoD of claims made by senior officers to this newspaper that soldiers were becoming "over cautious" because they feared investigation and prosecution.
The Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch has conducted more than 150 investigations in Iraq involving British soldiers, with more than 100 of these launched after troops opened fire when attacked by insurgents.
The report's findings come at the end of a three-year investigation into the death of Sgt Steven Roberts, who was killed in a friendly fire incident in the opening days of the Iraq war. Five soldiers, including an officer, faced a variety of charges including murder, manslaughter and negligence over the death of Sgt Roberts, a tank commander, who was shot dead by a soldier under his command. On Thursday, the Attorney General told Parliament that none of the soldiers would face charges because of a lack of evidence.
Patrick Mercer, the Tory spokesman on homeland security, who is a former infantry commanding officer, said last night: "We went through all of this in Northern Ireland 30 years ago and we arrived at rules of engagement that worked. The MoD has got to be held to blame for eroding a soldier's ability and willingness to defend himself. You can't send lads into action who are not completely confident that they will be backed to the hilt by the people who sent them to this war in the first place. The MoD has been consistently economical with the truth on this matter."
An MoD spokesman said: "Soldiers have nothing to fear from the investigation of incidents, so long as they act within their rules of engagement. The Armed Forces can also be certain that they will always receive the full support of the chain of command.
''The Land Warfare Centre's dialogue in Iraq, and their training recommendations, provides the Armed Forces with the reassurance needed to operate confidently within their rules of engagement, without fear of prosecution."
In his book, "Radical Son" David Horowitz describes the left as being vocally opposed to any intervention against Germany in the early days of WWII, when Russia and Germany acting together invaded Poland. It was only when the Nazi's turned on Stalin that the left began screaming for us to attack Germany.
"It's their standard infantry weapon. It was adopted, despite the existence of far better arms that could have been license-built, because it was the only domestic Brit weapon offered. It continues to be used because of the British Unwarranted Cultural Superiority syndrome - the same thing that sank their auto industry (along with their unions).
The smarter Brit soldiers cadge M-16s from us whenever they can, in-theater, and this causes a bit of scandal. Some of it has even hit the press and has been reported here on FR over the years."
Quite sorry to hear it. The British gave us our foundations---Shakespeare, the Magna Carta, they laid the cornerstones of our civilization. Now, I guess we have to do the best we can to lead them.
"In his book, "Radical Son" David Horowitz describes the left as being vocally opposed to any intervention against Germany in the early days of WWII, when Russia and Germany acting together invaded Poland. It was only when the Nazi's turned on Stalin that the left began screaming for us to attack Germany."
Quite true. I'd like to figure out where FDR fits into all that.
How stupid is it of a news organization to announce to the world that British troops are afraid to shoot back?
If there is a rise in violence against British troops they are to blame.
Well, the Brit military (those who are serving in the field) have only been screaming about it since before the first Gulf War.
Don't think these kind of thoughts are not also on the minds of American soldiers
We have already seen that in the prosecutions of some of our soldiers. My hubby (who was special forces Vietnam) has disagreed with this war for a long time. The reason? He says Iraq has turned into a "police action" not a war. Our guys are trained to fight wars not police Iraq while they try to form a government. If we had "fought" a war we would have been gone a long time ago.
I think he's right.
"How stupid is it of a news organization to announce to the world that British troops are afraid to shoot back?
If there is a rise in violence against British troops they are to blame."
I take your point, but isn't there another side? It seems to me that reporting it in the newspaper may lead to a positive change.
"Well, the Brit military (those who are serving in the field) have only been screaming about it since before the first Gulf War."
Well, based on the fact that it took them three years of investigation to find there was no evidence for charges against their own soldiers...
"The report's findings come at the end of a three-year investigation into the death of Sgt Steven Roberts, who was killed in a friendly fire incident in the opening days of the Iraq war. Five soldiers, including an officer, faced a variety of charges including murder, manslaughter and negligence over the death of Sgt Roberts, a tank commander, who was shot dead by a soldier under his command. On Thursday, the Attorney General told Parliament that none of the soldiers would face charges because of a lack of evidence."
...maybe the length of time from the first Gulf War to now is just part of the normal review process for a weapons system.
This secret report was leaked for a reason, and it wasn't to support British efforts in Iraq.
"We have already seen that in the prosecutions of some of our soldiers. My hubby (who was special forces Vietnam) has disagreed with this war for a long time. The reason? He says Iraq has turned into a "police action" not a war. Our guys are trained to fight wars not police Iraq while they try to form a government. If we had "fought" a war we would have been gone a long time ago.
I think he's right."
Basically, I agree to an extent, but I don't want to get too far into the 20/20 hindsight thing. At this point in time, looking back, it is easy to regret our course of action in a number of ways. The most obvious mistake, which I pointed out pretty quickly, was our failure to secure the borders (sound familiar?)
But vis-à-vis your view, we did defeat Saddam's army and topple his government. What do you think we should have done at that point?
"This secret report was leaked for a reason, and it wasn't to support British efforts in Iraq."
So, you don't think there's a good chance this news article may have a positive affect on British policy?
L
No, because they decided to swallow some of their pride and contracted with H&K to try to fix the things. They got more reliable, but they're still POS rifles.
The current word is that they're going to be replaced with H&K G36s. There's an outside chance that they might go to the FN2000 instead.
Come to think of it, our guys are still in Germany, Italy, and Japan.
L
British policy isn't the problem, British troops fear engaging the enemy because of a feeling of lack of support from the chain of command, that has nothing to do with policy.
The British commanders were taking steps to correct the problem when this report was released, I.E: the first step in correcting a problem is identifying it. The newspaper reporting a secret memo does notyhing to correct the problem either since it now allows Muslims in Great Britain with terrorist ties to report back to those in Iraq with the weaknesses of british troops.
Thanks for the response. I can see 'in hospital' rather than 'in a hospital'. But, I just cannot understand how the Brits would think 'shoot dead insurgents' is the same as 'shoot insurgents dead'. I know: They 'shoot dead' the insurgents. Just does not compute with my American brainwaves.
Learn something new every day :)
From what I've read the rebuilt L85's are now tolerable rifles. Of course for the amount of money they spent to buy them and then to fix them they could have done much, much better.
I guess one reason why British troops were not involved in the suppression of the AlSadr uprising in 2003. Even though the British were closer to the scene, a task force had to be formed from our troops in Baghdad.
"Have you seen any good war movies lately where war is seen as a good thing,to protect our freedoms?"I believe the last war movie i saw without an anti-US or anti-soldier agenda was JWayne in "The Green Berets".Could you see hollyweird making a similar movie today?
"I guess we have to do the best we can to lead them."LOL.The Brits are quite capable of leading themselves.Quite competent as a matter of fact:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.